You go on a vacation...

[Jacob Harrison]

In that case Attila had the most advanced civilization of the world until the mid 1700s. By your logic, the United Soviet Socialist Republic had a civilization that rivaled anything the Brits had going on.

By your own logic, Elizabeth is most definitely the rightful heir as her ancestors captured the throne. They were clearly more advanced.

But Attila was a barbarian who attacked the advanced Roman Empire. And England was a united nation more advanced than the tribal level of civilization so it was advanced enough that it was wrong to overthrow the rightful monarchs.

[Askold]

And the vikings were advanced enough that they had much greater gender equality than the people on the British isles did, for example, harming your wife was a punishable crime. Seems to me that the norse kings that the britons unlawfully drove off should still rule Britain under your rules. Better get to work on finding out whether the Danish or Swedish king should be put on the throne of England (note that those countries are even Christian. You are going to have to convert to another branch of Christianity again.)

[Jacob Harrison]

And the vikings were advanced enough that they had much greater gender equality than the people on the British isles did, for example, harming your wife was a punishable crime. Seems to me that the norse kings that the britons unlawfully drove off should still rule Britain under your rules. Better get to work on finding out whether the Danish or Swedish king should be put on the throne of England (note that those countries are even Christian. You are going to have to convert to another branch of Christianity again.)

Women had good status in Anglo Saxon society as well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Anglo-Saxon_society

[Askold]

You didn't read the article, did you?

[Jacob Harrison]

You didn't read the article, did you?

I did read the article. It says this.

A seminal study was published by Christine Fell as Women in Anglo-Saxon England in 1984. According to Fell, women were "near equal companions to the males in their lives, such as husbands and brothers, much more than in any other era before modern time".[1][2] Despite this sense of equality in some strata of society, Anglo Saxon women were still subject to concubinage. Gender was influenced by social status, religion and sexuality.[3][clarification needed] They were not only allowed to have private influence, but also a wide liberty of intervention in public affairs.[2]

The fact that it says “much more than in any other era before modern time” indicates that they had even greater near equality than in Viking culture.

[Askold]

But you didn't read further than that.

"...however, Aethelberht's law contradicts this in as much as a man is legally allowed to steal another man's wife as long as he pays him reparation.[1] Once married, a woman was to situate herself as the object of her husband's subjectivity, she was to become the object of his protection and the property, although she still remained the owner of her property.[3] The Church saw that married women had no authority and were to stand under the lordship of men. Therefore, under the church they were not able to teach, witness, take an oath, nor be a judge."

[Jacob Harrison]

But you didn't read further than that.

"...however, Aethelberht's law contradicts this in as much as a man is legally allowed to steal another man's wife as long as he pays him reparation.[1] Once married, a woman was to situate herself as the object of her husband's subjectivity, she was to become the object of his protection and the property, although she still remained the owner of her property.[3] The Church saw that married women had no authority and were to stand under the lordship of men. Therefore, under the church they were not able to teach, witness, take an oath, nor be a judge."

While there was not full gender equality it was still “much more than in any other era before modern time.” The Vikings did not have full gender equality either.

[Askold]

Viking women were still better off.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Do you really wanna go with "more advanced civilization can conquer others" as your answer? Is that your final answer?

Yes. That is how civilization spread throughout history. The Romans conquered the Barbarian tribes and spread their civilization throughout Europe just European powers such as the Spanish Empire conquered the natives and spread advanced European civilization throughout the Americas.

You a big fan of al-Andalus then?

Incoming "reasons."

[niam2023]

Is he the child of Elizabeth II or George VI? If not then I don't see how he could possibly be considered legitimate.

As I said, Elizabeth II is not the rightful legitimate monarch because she does not follow the true line of primogeniture from William the Conqueror.

And nobody but you cares about that, you manchild. How's your little Manson Family going BTW?

[Art Vandelay]

I feel like the whole "it was okay that time because advanced civilisation" argument kind of undermines his whole crusade for the True Heir. Which one matters, Jakey boy, ancestral property rights or the collective good of society? If it's the former, then conquering tribes even so primitive that they spend their days dancing around a camp fire with bones in their noses is no bueno, because you can't touch their shit. If the latter, then going to war to replace Britain's obscenely overpaid tourist attraction with an actual king (who is most likely some schmuck with no leadership or governing experience whatsoever) with absolute authority is no bueno because, well, turning a first world democracy into a bombed out dictatorship is going to ruin pretty much everyone's day.

Which ever it is, pick one and stick with it. Can't have it both ways.

[Jacob Harrison]

Viking women were still better off.

The Anglo Saxons were advanced enough in other ways, such as having established Kingdoms instead of tribes, which made it wrong for the Danes to conquer them.

[Jacob Harrison]

I feel like the whole "it was okay that time because advanced civilisation" argument kind of undermines his whole crusade for the True Heir. Which one matters, Jakey boy, ancestral property rights or the collective good of society? If it's the former, then conquering tribes even so primitive that they spend their days dancing around a camp fire with bones in their noses is no bueno, because you can't touch their shit. If the latter, then going to war to replace Britain's obscenely overpaid tourist attraction with an actual king (who is most likely some schmuck with no leadership or governing experience whatsoever) with absolute authority is no bueno because, well, turning a first world democracy into a bombed out dictatorship is going to ruin pretty much everyone's day.

Which ever it is, pick one and stick with it. Can't have it both ways.

There is a certain degree of advancement that a civilization can achieve which makes it wrong to conquer them. England was advanced enough when the true monarchs were ruling.

[Art Vandelay]

I feel like the whole "it was okay that time because advanced civilisation" argument kind of undermines his whole crusade for the True Heir. Which one matters, Jakey boy, ancestral property rights or the collective good of society? If it's the former, then conquering tribes even so primitive that they spend their days dancing around a camp fire with bones in their noses is no bueno, because you can't touch their shit. If the latter, then going to war to replace Britain's obscenely overpaid tourist attraction with an actual king (who is most likely some schmuck with no leadership or governing experience whatsoever) with absolute authority is no bueno because, well, turning a first world democracy into a bombed out dictatorship is going to ruin pretty much everyone's day.

Which ever it is, pick one and stick with it. Can't have it both ways.

There is a certain degree of advancement that a civilization can achieve which makes it wrong to conquer them. England was advanced enough when the true monarchs were ruling.

What specific degree of advancement is that, and how does that advancement make it wrong to conquer them?

[Jacob Harrison]

I feel like the whole "it was okay that time because advanced civilisation" argument kind of undermines his whole crusade for the True Heir. Which one matters, Jakey boy, ancestral property rights or the collective good of society? If it's the former, then conquering tribes even so primitive that they spend their days dancing around a camp fire with bones in their noses is no bueno, because you can't touch their shit. If the latter, then going to war to replace Britain's obscenely overpaid tourist attraction with an actual king (who is most likely some schmuck with no leadership or governing experience whatsoever) with absolute authority is no bueno because, well, turning a first world democracy into a bombed out dictatorship is going to ruin pretty much everyone's day.

Which ever it is, pick one and stick with it. Can't have it both ways.

There is a certain degree of advancement that a civilization can achieve which makes it wrong to conquer them. England was advanced enough when the true monarchs were ruling.

What specific degree of advancement is that, and how does that advancement make it wrong to conquer them?

The degree of advancement is whenever a civilization moves above tribal level and establishees a nation.